Evidence of meeting #26 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
Well, I'll go first to get it out of the way, but I'm not sure I fully understand how the vegetable sector works. I do know that in Canada we couldn't.... Well, how do I say this?
From the meat standpoint, for instance, the USDA choice, they don't let anybody else use that grade, so I'm a bit surprised that there's a product, perhaps from Thailand, that's using a Canada Grade A.
From what I know, all the beef in Canada, for instance, with a grading stamp, has to be graded in Canada, so you wouldn't end up with a product that was imported in that situation. It surprises me from that standpoint that it exists on the vegetable side.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Okay, but am I correct that a meat product can bear the label “Product of Canada” even though it's come from Mexico or Brazil?
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
Not if it's directly for sale to consumers, as it's supposed to be. If it's taken by fillers and processed further into a sausage, as they do, then it does actually cross a chapter in Canada's customs tariff HS code classification.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I understand the processing component, but for the derivative, where the item has come from in the first place is not made known to the consumer with respect to current labelling practices. Am I correct about that?
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
That's correct. But again, if it's brought in by Costco and if nothing else is done to it, they're supposed to write “Product of Mexico” or “Product of...”.
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council
Certainly with the Canadian dollar recently, we're seeing it. A couple of years ago it wasn't a problem, because we didn't see the stuff coming in. It was cheaper for them to buy it from Canada. Now it's becoming an issue, but there are rules that need to be enforced surrounding that.
9:55 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council
Thank you. I have a couple of comments.
I think my group would be willing to consider “Prepared in Canada”. I think that has some validity, but not “Packaged in Canada”.
First of all, we don't want that many labels. I think that's going to be more confusing.
The idea that I tried to get through in my presentation was that the current regulation of “Product of Canada” results in good-quality products. Often my companies put their own brand on it. So when we talk about where the product is originally from, I understand, and I agree that if consumers want to see that, we need to find a way to tell them that.
9:55 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council
Sorry?
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I don't think there's any “if” about it. I think consumers want to know where this product has come from.
9:55 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council
I'm not sure. And we could cover that off by having it voluntary. If companies felt that it wasn't a big enough concern to them, then they wouldn't need to do it. If they thought it was a big concern, they would. And we would find out; the marketplace would tell us, frankly.
In terms of stating “Packaged in Canada”, the one example--I'm sorry, I forget what it was--of a product that came in and was simply packaged in Canada and then sold as a product of Canada.... The way I see it, that shouldn't be allowed under today's regulation. That might have made the 51% hurdle, but that didn't meet the further-processed hurdle, and I think that's one of the issues.
10 a.m.
Vice-President, Communications and Public Affairs, Conseil de la transformation agroalimentaire et des produits de consommation (CTAC)
We would agree with Monsieur McDuff's position, because that's exactly what we brought to the table today.
I think the consumer wants to know, but has a right to know also, and has a right to get the information as it is. So if you take this example, it makes no sense, because the ingredients come from India, it's packaged in Canada, and it has a Canadian label.
I want to know that what I'm eating comes from India or China. I'm a concerned consumer, and this is not a reflection of the reality.
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Good morning to all of you. Thank you for being with us today. I have the same problem as M. Lacoste. I have almost completely lost my voice, not because of what you said, but for the same reasons as Mr. Lacoste.
I represent the region of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, a highly agricultural riding, where more than 25 per cent of the jobs are directly and indirectly tied to the agri-food sector.
You discussed the “Product of Canada” designation at length, saying it can confuse consumers. In my region, one of the designations that is currently popular is “Produit du terroir” or “Regional Product”. In fact, I was discussing this at the last meeting. When people buy a product labelled “Regional Product”, they know for certain that the product was manufactured in Quebec. We all agree that there have to be changes in that regard.
My first question is addressed to all the witnesses. At the present time, the standard for using the “Product of Canada” designation is at least 51 per cent of the production costs.
Mr. McDuff made a great presentation. He is suggesting three different avenues. If there could only be one label, which one would you recommend?
10 a.m.
General Manager, Fédération québécoise des producteurs de fruits et légumes de transformation
It makes no sense to consider a single label. You talked about jobs, and we also believe that the manufacturing industry generates significant numbers of jobs that need to be protected. That is why we think there should be several different labels. As far as we are concerned, Ms. Thi Lac, it is absolutely essential that the “Product of Canada” designation be redefined. When you sell a product labelled as a “Product of Canada”, the primary raw materials used to produce the product have to be Canadian.
Ms. Jean and Ms. Cloutier from CTAC said that at least 80 per cent of the raw materials should be Canadian. Our approach is similar, but slightly different. We believe that, when a consumer buys a jar of dill pickles, what he is interested in eating are pickles, rather than dill. If the dill comes from Holland, as agricultural producers, we will not be upset. However, a Canadian product must contain cucumbers that come from Canada. It is essential that the raw materials used to produce the product that the consumer buys be Canadian.
There are two steps here. In order to properly identify and differentiate a product from all the others, you absolutely must use the “Canada Brand” concurrently. If that is the case, consumers will no longer be misled. In addition, retailers will have an incentive to meet real consumer needs and include, among their private brand products, some that have that label.
I would just like to make one correction. It was stated earlier that, when a product is packaged in India, it says “Product of India”. However, it is rare for products to be placed on store shelves on the basis of their origin. We are more likely to organize displays based on the brand. There can be Canadian products and Indian products, but the consumer is not aware of their origin. That is precisely the reason why we would like the “Product of Canada” designation to be used hand in hand with “Canada Brand”. If the product is from India, it will not have that label. Consumers will make their choice based on the price. We will not be imposing anything on them, but they will be able to make an enlightened choice.
Having said that, we think it is appropriate to have several different designations, including “Product prepared in Canada”. In our region—I'm from the same region as you—a company like Les Industries Lassonde imports fruit juice from all across the globe, but produces a Canadian product that generates thousands of jobs. It is entitled to use the designation “Product prepared in Canada”, or something similar. However, I would not agree to the idea of this kind of product being labelled “Canada Brand”. I believe that designation should be reserved exclusively for Canadian products.
10:05 a.m.
General Manager, Further Poultry Processors Association of Canada
To both the previous question as well as this one, I would like to propose—and I did this in the presentation—that we leave the “Product of Canada” label alone. In other words, it is already understood out there, and most of us have agreed on what the understanding is. What we're missing is a way of communicating with the consumer—I agree, consumers need this information, and they're demanding more and more of it—what is really grown in Canada, what contains a “grown in Canada” situation.
You've identified your organic standard nicely: it has to be 95% organic to be labelled organic. You're saying 80% of the main ingredients must be Canadian, and then the product can bear the “grown in Canada” label. To me that makes a lot of sense, creating a new label that really communicates the Canadian content of that label. Then we have to home in on how to do that. Is it 80%?
The witnesses on the other side are from the vegetable industry. We're from the meat industry. The meat industry is a very integrated North American industry. We use feed from the United States. We use chicks from the United States. Twenty percent of our chickens—our original chickens, our eggs, and our chicks—come from the United States. How are you going to calculate Canadian content? If a turkey is grown in Canada but is eating U.S. feed--60% of the turkey is really feed--can we call it Canadian? You're going to get into all kinds of these issues. All the sausages we make contain ingredients from three or four or five different countries. How do we tell you as a consumer where the ingredients come from?
You have a product, a chicken grown in Canada. Fine. But the pasta, the vegetables, the spices, the breading is all imported. Now what do we call it? Do we still call it “Product of Canada”?
So that's why we need to talk about “grown in Canada”. If we want to send a message that this chicken in this particular product was grown in Canada, give us that opportunity. Give us a label that allows us to say something about “grown in Canada”. But you don't need to change “Product of Canada”, because the “Product of Canada” rule is very much used like your “prepared in Canada” suggestion. That's really what it's used for right now.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to put my first question to Ms. Jean. If I understood you correctly, Ms. Jean, you would like the Canadian content requirement for use of the “Product of Canada” designation to be 80 per cent.
10:05 a.m.
Technical Director, Conseil de la transformation agroalimentaire et des produits de consommation (CTAC)
That is correct.
